Kerry: Dean's foreign policy portfolio is too weak

[NewYorkerfromMass]

Howard Dean would be "eviscerated" by President Bush's re-election team next year if Dean emerges as the Democratic Party's nominee for the White House, chiefly because of the former Vermont governor's "enormous deficit" of experience in national security and military affairs, Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday. These comments are the strongest Kerry has made in conveying that Dean would lose to Bush, an argument that has become a tacit theme of Kerry's own candidacy as he struggles to surmount Dean's double-digit lead in New Hampshire polls before the primary there Jan. 27....

"If 9/11 has taught us anything and George Bush has taught us anything, it is that this is not the moment for on-the-job training in the conduct of foreign affairs, international security affairs, and military affairs of our country," Kerry said.....

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2003/12/12/kerry_deans_foreign_policy_portfolio_is_too_weak?mode=PF

This is what Dean must counter if he is to beat Bush. Kerry is doing us all a favor by putting Dean to the test now.

[Pax Hayden]

1. As opposed to *'s foreign policy portfolio when he was selected? (nt)

[Sensitivity]

79. DEAN/KERRY IS THE ANSWER. I DON'T TRUST CLARK

Hey fellow Deannies. LETS BE HONEST AND ADMIT THAT KERRY IS REALLY
GOOD ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY.

I saw his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations and it was pretty snazzy. I HONESTLY DON'T THINK OUR GUY COULD COMPARE.

Kerry messed up with the IWR. But, that's past now.

I think Dean should team up with Kerry against Bush or we could be spending a lot of money on the "foreign policy experience" thing.

Clark could be good. But he voted Republican most of his life. Something wrong there. I wouldn't trust him in the whitehouse.

[TLM]

80. I agree that Clark is not to be trusted...

And Frankly Kerry would make a great VP. But I doubt he'd take the offer at this point, he's too invested in bashing Dean.

Although he might, and if he did, the ticket would be unbeatable.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

83. It's not worth losing Kerry's seat to Romney's appointment

and nobody could get Dean elected as 2nd spot on the ticket. Not Clark, Kerry... nobody.

[Sensitivity]

87. WHAT ARE THE OTHER CHOICES: SAM NUN???

Have heard a rumor that Sam Nun is going to be Deans VP.

Isn't he like a Republican?

[Loonman]

2. Understatement of the year

Dean has no foreign policy experience.

Clinton didn't either, but he learned quickly. Can Dean learn too?

[Monte Carlo]

6. Clinton surrounded himself with very smart and experienced people...

... to advise him on matters of foreign policy. Being the smart cookie he was, Clinton was able to act on their info with his own judgement, and it worked out pretty damned well.

I'm certain Dean, an M.D., is a bright one as well. If he found the same quality of help on this matter, he could do well for himself, too. He will have to sell his 'product' on this issue just right.

[sendero]

33. who has demonstrated learning....

.... a medical doctor or a Congressman who doens't know to not trust Bush*. ?

[sandnsea]

36. Not so far

He said he supported disarming Saddam by military action in 2002, now he says he was against the war from the start.

He says he supports the previous evenhanded I/P approach, but now says he supports Israel's right to defend itself. These are opposite policies.

He called Hamas soldiers which will be used against him next year. Stupid mistake.

He suggested sanctions on Saudi Arabia which is a diplomatic measure you take to avoid war.

His blunder of calling Russia the Soviet Union is no big deal, except that he did it 4 times and didn't realize he was doing it and it's going to be used against him next year. Another stupid mistake.

So far, Dean has not learned quickly and we are in a different time. I wish people would accept that reality.

[Loonman]

64. Hmmm....I don't like that.....

Oh yeah, will that come back to bite him in the ass. And how.

Politics is a dirty game, Mr. Dean.

[TLM]

69. Why do you folks continue to lie about this as if nobody will catch you?

"He said he supported disarming Saddam by military action in 2002, now he says he was against the war from the start."

Are you Kerrykin capable of comprehending the difference between supporting UN action to disarm saddam, with use of force to destory weapons as an option, and invading Iraq to take over the fucking country?

Pretty much everybody supported the idea of disarming saddam through the UN, and using force to the end of destorying weapons if it was necessary. Because that's a far cry from supporting the invasion and take over of Iraq.

So why try to act as if they are the same thing? DO you folks really think people are that stupid?

He says he supports the previous evenhanded I/P approach, but now says he supports Israel's right to defend itself. These are opposite policies.

No they're not... how does being fair and evenhanded mean Israel can't defend itself? Saying that Israel can not defend itself against suicide attacks wouldn't seem very evenhanded to me.



He called Hamas soldiers which will be used against him next year. Stupid mistake.

By whom, Kerry? Some of Hamas are soldiers... just like some of the taliban are soldiers. Just because a given group supports terrorism, that doesn't make everybody connected with them terrorists.

Unless of course you feel that all american troops are terrorists... since Tim Mcveigh was one and he was trained by our military.


He suggested sanctions on Saudi Arabia which is a diplomatic measure you take to avoid war.

Yeah and he is right... sanctions on SA to hinder the efforts of groups that are funded by Saudi money and use it to maintain war in the mid-east.


His blunder of calling Russia the Soviet Union is no big deal, except that he did it 4 times and didn't realize he was doing it and it's going to be used against him next year. Another stupid mistake.

So what... as if this will hurt Dean in a campaign with a guy who can't even find russia on a map.


So far, Dean has not learned quickly and we are in a different time. I wish people would accept that reality.

I bet you do wish people would blindly swallow the "different time" bullshit because that fear mongering is something folks like Kerry and CLark depend on.

[sandnsea]

82. The sandpit must be huge

People can hear and read. I refuse to go through Biden-Lugar again.

The past policy of evenhandedness has been built around restraining Israel from taking pre-emptive military action against Palestine.

Terrorists are not soldiers. I don't know why people don't get this. And sanctions against a country that you MUST buy oil from is a stupid idea. At least until you've exhausted every other avenue. To throw it out as the first solution shows Dean is totally amateur hour.

We are so fucked with Dean as a nominee. He would make the chimp look smart, that's how bad it would be. And it's not because Dean is stupid, it's because he just doesn't have the experience to debate the foreign relation and defense issues that are going to come up next year.

[TLM]

89. You can only repeat the lies and BS... no support provided at all.

"People can hear and read. I refuse to go through Biden-Lugar again."

Oh, but I will because I have the facts on my side...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.

Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.

Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html



"The past policy of evenhandedness has been built around restraining Israel from taking pre-emptive military action against Palestine."

Pre-emptive action is not defense... it is offense. Next?


"Terrorists are not soldiers. I don't know why people don't get this."

No they are not, but as I said the existance of terrorists does not mean everybody connected to a group of terrorists is a terrorist. Hamas does support terrorists... as well as non-terrorists. To say that everybody connected to hamas is a terrorists is not accurate.


" And sanctions against a country that you MUST buy oil from is a stupid idea. At least until you've exhausted every other avenue. To throw it out as the first solution shows Dean is totally amateur hour. "

That's why the idea of sanctions against SA is prefaced on getting oil elsewhere and shifting energy to other sources. You continue to ignore the context of these statements as if it does anythign other than make you look uninformed and desperate.


"We are so fucked with Dean as a nominee."

IF by "we" you mean the the republicans, then you are correct.


" He would make the chimp look smart, that's how bad it would be."

Says you, and you're bias is clear.

"And it's not because Dean is stupid, it's because he just doesn't have the experience to debate the foreign relation and defense issues that are going to come up next year."


Clearly he does have that experience because he's already doing a fantastic job of it... enough to beat your guy.

But I almost get the feeling you want Dean to lose to Bush.

[paulk]

67. do we have the luxury of waiting?

that's the real question...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

76. wow Paul- that's a GOP line if ever there was one.

damn. Dean is DOA if we nominate him. I don't care how bad Bush is and has been. They will kill us among voters where national defense is a top concern.

[paulk]

84. I'm sure they'll use it.

But I say that as a "Democrat" who is concerned with Dean's lack of experience in national security. We truly DON'T have the luxury of waiting. Like Kerry said awhile ago - Bush is the poster boy for that.

We need to hit the ground running - with Kerry.

[ShimokitaJer]

3. Kerry: Bush stronger than Democratic frontrunner

You go, Kerry.

</sarcasm off>

[quinnox]

4. Kerry is right as usual

Dean is the Titanic, and I have a thing about boarding a ship that will lead the Dems down the path to another presidential loss.

This election is too important to nominate a Democrat who will perform like McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis all did.

[virtualobserver]

9. Dean is not the Titanic......

but Kerry definitely is the Exxon Valdez.

Who is drivin' that thing?

[Rose Siding]

5. Kerry's doing someone a favor

and his quote will show up in an RNC spot next year

[Monte Carlo]

7. Do you really think it wasn't going to be there, anyway?

Since when does the GOP need anything material for their slander? Just look at Clinton and Gore.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Maybe they really do believe that

in which case.... :shrug:

[virtualobserver]

11. the GOP doesn't even need reality.....

they make it up as they go.

[Hep]

8. No worries

Kerry's message isn't resonating at all. 9/11 taught us that giving up our ideals out of fear is the single worst thing we can do for ourselves. We learned that after voting for the Patriot Act and the IWR.

9/11 taught us many things, but not what Kerry said. Bush didn't fail bcause of on the job training. Bush failed because he pushed an agenda that was designed to lead us where we are.

Kerry is in bad shape. He'll try any message, no matter how far fetched or how fear based it is. What he won't do is make this about HIM or HIS POLICIES. The reason Kerry will lose is because he can't stop talking about Dean.

The reason Dean will beat Kerry is the fact that even in states where Dean has no office, Dean is polling well. And it's because of us. Because you can go into just about any town and find an organized group of Dean volunteers.

Things are going to get worse for Kerry, and I fear that the way he conducts himself over the next two months will damage him in future elections.

[tsipple]

15. Yup

The only way Kerry can get any press nowadays is by attacking Dean, and now it's got to be more clownish than ever to get a Page A28 story.

Pretty soon he won't even be able to get those unless he figures out how to run a campaign.

[TLM]

73. All Dean has to do is say...

Kerry voted for the Patriot act to limit our civil liberties under the pretense of fighting terror... and now he knows he was wrong and is against the patriot act. Where was his experience then?

Kerry voted to give Bush a blank check for a war in Iraq based on lies and false intel... and now he says he was wrong to support Bush and is now against the war. Where was his experience then?

We need someone who can make the right policy decisions when it matters… not after the damage has already been done. We don't need Kerry's brand of experience in the White House.

[dave29]

12. When Democrats attack

I love the smell of Desperation in the morning

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. nominating Dean would show desperation

really. If we think Dean can beat Bush, and think we can ignore the importance of national defense post 9/11, then we Democrats are truly desperate.

[dave29]

22. How is Dean ignoring the importance of

National Defense. What part of his position on National Defense do you not understand? Just because you are a senator or a governor or a VP doesn't mean you get to be President. There is no Presidential training course other than one's own experience.

Howard Dean made the right call on the war and John Kerry didn't. No amount of experience prevented Kerry from making that tragic mistake. I really like John Kerry, but he is not owed, or entitled to the Presidency.

How you expect George W. Bush to "eviscerate" Dean in foreign policy when he has alienated our allies and much of the world I simply do not follow. The only way he can achieve that goal is with folks like you paving the way for him to do so.

I congratulate you on your passion for your candidate, but you are simply wrong here. Presidents make themselves. And Howard Dean is on the way to doing just that.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

39. Because when the time came to confront Saddam

Dean chose not to.

This has nothing to do with war. It has to do with confronting Saddam, getting inspectors into Iraq, and confirming Iraqi compliance.

IWR was bait to see who would vote 'NO'. Dean took the bait.

In case you didn't notice, Clinton agreed with his wife's YES vote.

[dave29]

45. OH My freakin God

When the time came to confront Saddam.

You honestly thought President George W. Bush was the right person to pull this off? That he was going to go over there and make 'Merica proud - and not pull a PNAC wetdream scenario for his backers? Even his father's friends were jittery about the whole proposition.

Tell me what evidence we had that Bush wasn't going to screw this whole thing up? What foreign policy acumen did Bush exhibit other than reaping the rewards of a national tragedy (and subsequently using it to push hard to the right). Sure, the Democrats in congress (including Kerry and Clinton) gave him the rope to hang himself with - and yes, he sure did, but you know what? It cost hundreds of our sons and daughters their lives, and thousands of others their limbs.
And it cost us dearly around the world.

And we did it alone. I'm sorry, with the help of a few thousand Polish soldiers. And the British (whose people vehemently opposed us).

This was the master-stroke of Bush foreign policy wizardy that we are supposed to be so afriad of now. Quaking in our boots in fact.

And John Kerry voted to make it so.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

74. we were confronting Saddam- not Bush

We would do well to listen to former President Clinton.

[TLM]

75. LOL! Right from the RNC... confronting Saddam... poop

And just watch... next week you'll be screaming how Dean supported the war because he supported the biden lugar bill.

[PVnRT]

28. Statements like that show desperation

n/t

[dave29]

37. yes, I cower before the mighty

juggernaut that is the John Kerry campaign. Regardless of your well reasoned input, I still like your candidate. Can't say the same for many of his supporters - but the feeling is mutual and all that

blah blah blah

[blm]

34. Kerry attacks with the truth. Dean attacked with distortions.

I'll take the man who speaks the truth anyday.

[dave29]

41. and I admire you for

believing in Kerry. He has been a great Senator. Unfortunately he made the wrong call on the war, and has had a lot of problems with his campaign - which says a lot about his ability to lead. I also get a very strong sense of entitlement from him, which I find very off-putting. I completely disagree Bush could "eviscerate" any of our major candidates on foreign policy. For Kerry to suggest so takes him down yet another notch for me.

As far as your characterization of Dean, I disagree wholeheartedly, but I do not pretend to hope you will ever see the light there.

[TLM]

55. So lying and spining decade old half quotes is honest?

Taking an answer to a hypothetical question and acting as if it is a policy position is honest?

Face it BLM... Dean's attacks on Kerry have been on Kerry's voting record over the last three years and is 100% true. While Kerry’s attacks on Dean have been made up and spun bullshit about half a sentence pulled from interviews 10 freaking years ago.

Then there's the giant lies that Kerry was telling about Dean back in February... remember back when Kerry was attacking the UN and attacking Dean for wanting UN support and trying to pint himself as the big pro-war military hawk?

Funny how when these initial attacks from Kerry's campaign on Dean are quoted, you ignore them and go right on spreading this lie that somehow Dean was the only one to attack other dems, when the record clearly shows the first and most vicious attacks came from Kerry.


From Feb 25 2003...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.


From April 2003....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/politics/main551359.shtml

Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane issued a statement in response to Dean's comments in an article posted Monday on Time.com. "We have to take a different approach" to diplomacy," the former Vermont governor was quoted as saying during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. "We won't always have the strongest military."

"Howard Dean's stated belief that the United States won't always have the strongest military raises serious questions about his capacity to serve as commander in chief," Lehane said. "No serious candidate for the presidency has ever before suggested that he would compromise or tolerate an erosion of America's military supremacy."



Nowhere in Dean's quote did he say or imply anything about tolerating the erosion of our military... but that didnt stop Kerrry from lying and claiming he had.

So you want to explain how you reach the conclusion that Kerry has been honest in his attacks on Dean?

[killbotfactory]

13. All the experienced foriegn policy people...

Supported one of the worst mistake the US has made in it's history.

Fuck you, Kerry.

[quinnox]

14. The Dems don't need a two-bit phony like Dean leading the party

"Confederate" Dean doesn't deserve to be the nominee.

The Dems can do much, much, much, better.

[tsipple]

19. I Called Jesus Christ

He's unavailable, and Karl Rove is eager to run against him if he should change his mind.

So, have you got another nominee in mind? All but two of them (Dean and Kerry) are remaining within the federal matching funds system, and they're all thus unelectable given the $110+M Bush ad blitz of 2004. Then Kerry can't even outpoll Dean in Massachusetts.

Who's left? Buehler? Buehler?

[killbotfactory]

25. Jesus Christ is the next McGovern...

Rove will attack him as unpatriotic and soft on terrorism.

[Hep]

26. LOL

Jesus will lose in a landslide!

[Hep]

24. The facts don't bear that out.

But it'ds funny that the rhetoric get's more and more heated the more desperate Kerry's campaign gets.

[PVnRT]

30. With who, Hillary?

Yeah, the GOP won't have any fun with her. They, in fact, have NO DIRT on her WHATSOEVER, and ALL of America LOVES HER UNDCONDITIONALLY.

[Monte Carlo]

48. Come on, now.

Dean is not a two-bit phony, any more than all politicians are two-bit phonies, which they all are. No one is snow-white pure. You would be good of you to play nice with the man who could be your President for the next four years.

Dean has shown a superior ability to organize. If he can do that with his campaign, maybe he can do that with the country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Kerry the foreign policy "expert" who voted for the IWR.

Why would anyone consider this bozo an "expert" - other than Kerry himself?

[paulk]

47. what a thoughtless response

Resume means nothing to you? Kerry is a "bozo"?

I hope to hell the level of discourse shown by so many of the Dean faithful is not a reflection of the man himself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. You're right.

Not a bozo but a self-serving political opportunist. Better? I guess I've been watching too many scenes of dead people in Iraq caused by American aggression agreed to by the "foreign policy expert".

[Monte Carlo]

50. Why do you think he voted 'yes'?

I would like to know.

Sen. Kerry is a ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. That is not something to sneeze at.

[LuminousX]

18. Thanks for the favor Kerry

So what does Kerry want Dean supporters to do? Drop the support?

[tsipple]

20. Well, He Wants Dean Supporters to Switch To...

...Uh, well, I, um...

Don't know, actually. Good question.

[quinnox]

21. Of course

That is what the primary race is all about! To WIN.

[LuminousX]

58. How is this winning?

How does this lure Dean supporters to Kerry? Why wasn't Kerry hitting this note months ago instead of whining about how mean Dean is?

Kerry misses the mark once again.

[killbotfactory]

23. Kerry has too much anger...

You can't win with just anger and empty rhetoric...

[PATRICK]

27. A valid point, but weak

Bush- the incompetent antiChrist of American foreign policy having an "edge"? Kerry suckered with the very wisdom and experience he touts? Hindsight looks over a graveyard.

The point is there, but diluted by things as they really are, not resume or experience.

Then too, the choice of a Veep has come to be more significant in the last few presidencies, and the public has gotten that message. Clark would ironically seem to be dean's choice over Kerry for traditional electoral reasons as well.

Listening to Kerry though, I simply cannot write him off as in the past I have deselected other worthies. Nor am I overwhelmed by the superiority of any of the other "big three" candidates. I hope the decision will be easier by the time we vote in New York. I can see how we are spoiled over here by the lateness of our vote.

Still, the point should be made- as Kerry himself and the others are doing- that it is not just about beating Bush. Any of the top candidates should be able to or none can. Not a single point should be conceded to Bush(as Kerry also said), so why use those points in criticizing the chances of your rivals?

A political dilemma, I am sure.

[quinnox]

29. What do Mcgovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Dean all have in common?

If Dean is the nominee, the answer is they all lost badly to the GOP.

by supporting other candidates, I aim to avert this future trivia question.

[PVnRT]

32. Yet another uinnox statement

with no backing in reality whatsoever.

Note: your opinion is not fact. Try backing yourself up with facts for once.

[Hep]

38. None of them have been in my kitchen

You're supporting other candidates? It's not working.

[CWebster]

31. please

Dean claims that his foreign policy is better because he opposed Chimpy's
Reaganesque fantasy war realized while Kerry was up there talking out of both sides of his mouth. Kerry is subject to poor political advice---what kind of evidence does that present that would encourage anyone to reward him with the presidency? He can not even run a good organized, effective campaign with a message that has ever gotten any traction other than sour attacks on Dean.

Why would anyone who presently supports Dean and his successful campaign be persuded to join Kerry's faltering campaign of little more than attacks targeting their preferred candidate?

[sandnsea]

35. France ready to cooperate

I wish people would pick out things that help Kerry instead of always going to the anti-Dean.

"Touting his own relationships with foreign governments, Kerry disclosed that he was recently told that French President Jacques Chirac is willing to assist with the occupation of Iraq, and Chirac has even signaled a willingness to send French troops to Iraq.

"I've talked with a friend of mine who was in Paris the other day who was meeting with President Chirac at length, exploring some ideas, and the clear conclusion was that there is a place where the president is prepared to be involved and even perhaps put troops on the ground," Kerry said."

[tsipple]

40. Sandnsea, Now That's More Like It!

That's much closer to the mark on how Kerry could run a decent campaign. This whining about "Dean, Dean, Dean" is so unbecoming. But if Kerry could manage to help broker an agreement between France and the United States, now you're talking something interesting.

Lots of Dean supporters, me included, still like Kerry -- though it's getting harder and harder :-) -- but we're pretty disgusted with the incompetence of his campaign.

[sandnsea]

52. Both need to be done

It's not right to expect there to be no criticism of Dean. It's especially wrong when all the criticism from Dean is for things he's done or supported himself and he cries foul anytime anyone calls him on it or criticizes him for legitimate issue differences. And that makes Dean harder and harder to like by supporters of ALL the candidates. You may have no idea the degree of anger Dean is really generating against him.

But when Kerry supporters have an opportunity to highlight something as important as foreign relationships that he already has and opt to bash Dean instead, it's frustrating to me as well.

[HuckleB]

42. I think this is the last straw.

Kerry and his campaign are no longer worthy of my respect. Sure, I'll vote for him if he is the nominee, but it is going to be difficult for me to honor my commitment to give money and time to a nominee named Kerry. I'll do it, but I will have to work very hard to keep my mouth shut.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

43. A defense of Kerry's charge would be better

than simply ignoring the charge. BTW, a lot of people like to compare Dean to Clinton, problem is Clinton would have supported IWR.
Clinton knew correct posture on foreign policy issues.

[HuckleB]

44. This is another repeat.

I've defended over and over and over again. My time is not going to be wasted on this nonsense anymore. The repetitive anti-Dean drivel has been shown be just that over and over and over again. Why should I do it another time? It's like Dean detractors think they "win" if they keep repeating the same mantras. They're probably right. I don't have the energy anymore.

[slinkerwink]

46. hey

:hug:

[HuckleB]

59. Cheers!

[paulk]

51. that would require some actual critical thought...

Faith is easier.

[HuckleB]

54. Thanks for the usual bash.

But I've offered plenty. It's time to let it go. Thanks for making another unjustified assumption about me. That's really substantial, critical thought there.

[paulk]

65. Yes, it's a bash

tit for tat. You've made several posts on this thread, none of which addresses Sen. Kerry's remarks.

What foreign policy/national security experience does the Governor from Vermont possess? What's in that portfolio that would make me feel he's the right guy for the job of defending me against international terrorism?

[HuckleB]

68. And I've said why.

I've addressed his remarks ad nauseum. You think that by repeating accusations that somehow gives them legitimacy. I find that ridiculous.

Further, your bash was hardly tit for tat. You attacked me, personally. I merely addressed my extreme disappointment in Kerry.

Goodbye.

[paulk]

72. accusations are legitimate unless they're debunked.

debunk them.

[HuckleB]

81. Already have.

Just because you choose to repeat them again, doesn't make them legitimate. Are you reading my posts at all?

[sandnsea]

53. What goes around...

There's alot of people in ALL the other candidate camps that feel the exact same way about Dean.

[HuckleB]

57. So they say.

Yet the amount of criticism from Dean is minute by comparison, even to just the past few days from Kerry. He has greatly disappointed me. I'm sorry to have to say that.

[sandnsea]

63. Not in my mind

Dean's entire campaign has been to entirely scorch the other Democratic candidates and Democratic Party in general. It's what the "movement" is all about. Anger at Bush and anger at the Bush-lite Dems. How anyone can say his criticism is minute when that's the basis of the campaign is beyond me.

[HuckleB]

70. Of course.

Funny thing is, I've seen him speak, and he said nothing negative about any Dem. I've read much about him, and most of it is positive proposals, with very little bashing anywhere. I've called him on a bash or two here, so don't think I just let it go, when he participates in this type of stuff. But what Kerry and Edwards have done in the last week is far and away extreme compared to anything I've noted from Dean.

Cheers!

[TLM]

49. Sour Grapes.... Kerry can't win, so he'll attack the Dem front runner...

What does Kerry do... does he show why he is a better candidate, does he try harder to excite and inspire people, does he say he is sorry for voting for the IWR?

Nope, he bashes Dean.

Newsflash Kerry... this is exactly why you're losing.

[Monte Carlo]

56. It's not sour grapes, and this thing isn't over yet.

And don't be suprised when the frontrunner in a race gets attacked. Everyone tries to knock down the king of the mountain.

In this article, Kerry does expand on his credentials on foreign policy. What's the problem?

[TLM]

77. It is over for Kerry...

that's for damn sure... this is a race between Clark and Dean.


Gosh I recall some smart ass on DU saying months and months ago when Clark came into the race that he'd not eclipse Dean but Clark would draw his support from Kerry's campaign causing both Clark and Kerry to fight for second place while Dean went on to win the primary.... who was that guy... oh yeah, ME!

[paulk]

60. I think Kerry is taking the wrong tact here

Instead of relating this to Dean's chances against Bush, he should be going directly to the American people.

That's my problem with Dean's foreign policy portfolio, or lack of...
The threat of international terrorism is real - and I want a president who has some experience in this area. That's not Howard Dean. I want someone in the White House who has dealt with these issues - not because I'm worried about Bush, but because I'm worried about international terrorism.

[Cheswick2.0]

61. None of the candidates should be doing this

Kerry can't win by doing this kind of snippy attack.

[Egnever]

62. LOL kerry becomse more pathetic by the day

I thought he was going after clark now since he has no shot against dean. I guess he is a one trick pony.

DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN

just drop out allready Kerry you arent doing anyone any good at this point, not even yourself.

[TLM]

78. Ack god no... Kerry must stay in... it is critical.

Dean is going to beat Clark because of the support base that is split between Kerry and Clark.

It is the egos of Kerry and Gephardt and Lieberman that will clear the way for Dean to win.

If Kerry were to drop out now his support would split between CLark and Dean and that would give Clark a much needed boost in this early phase.

No no, we need all these guys in there at least through the first batch of primaries.

[killbotfactory]

85. Kerry's ego overrides his sense.

If it didn't, he would of taken the hint when his contributions started to dry up, instead of writing himself a check.

Whatever makes him happy, I guess.

[w4rma]

66. Kerry attacks the whole Democratic Party when he uses bullcrap rhetoric

like this. Many folks see little noticable difference between Kerry's foreign policy proposals and Dean's.

Dean, Lieberman & Kerry Iraq Reconstruction Plans
Side by Side Comparison
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_reconstruction

[paulk]

71. Kerry's not talking about "proposals"

he's talking about experience. The kind of experience the Governer from the state of Vermont doesn't have.

[blm]

86. Lightweight Dean cribbed Kerry's foreign policy speech.

Anyone who reads them side by side can see it.

And as for attacking the Dem party with bullcrap rhetoric...HAHAHAHAH...you have the nerve to point to Kerry after the last year of Dean's attacks on the other Democrats AND the Democratic party itself? The liar and compromising centrist Dean had the NERVE to call those WAY to his left, "Bushlite" and coopted the rhetoric from internet message boards to lash at the Dem party.

He can go sit on a tack.

[TLM]

90. Funny since Dean's been giving the same speech for months...

And you continue to ignore the proof of Kerry's dishonest attacks on Dean as early as Feb of this year. So here they are again.

Funny how when these initial attacks from Kerry's campaign on Dean are quoted, you ignore them and go right on spreading this lie that somehow Dean was the only one to attack other dems, when the record clearly shows the first and most vicious attacks came from Kerry.


From Feb 25 2003...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.


From April 2003....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/politics/main551359.shtml

Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane issued a statement in response to Dean's comments in an article posted Monday on Time.com. "We have to take a different approach" to diplomacy," the former Vermont governor was quoted as saying during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. "We won't always have the strongest military."

"Howard Dean's stated belief that the United States won't always have the strongest military raises serious questions about his capacity to serve as commander in chief," Lehane said. "No serious candidate for the presidency has ever before suggested that he would compromise or tolerate an erosion of America's military supremacy."



Nowhere in Dean's quote did he say or imply anything about tolerating the erosion of our military... but that didnt stop Kerrry from lying and claiming he had.

So you want to explain how you reach the conclusion that Kerry has been honest in his attacks on Dean?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

91. "We won't always have the strongest military" means- yes he believes it

It shows he countenanced the thought and accepted it, and voiced the thought.
That statement cannot be taken any other way.
The fact he uttered those words shows that intellectually he had tolerated the erosion of our comparative military supremacy!

Accept this fact: Few moderates will seriously consider voting for Dean when that quote is paired with his getting his medical deferrment and then going skiing.